This beautiful work of art was born from the hands of Sister Mercedes. When deciding on the name for this piece of art, this sister kept it simple and straightforward with a name that most Judeo-Christians are familiar with: Madonna And Child. Although it would be interesting to see this image in three dimensions, we will have to settle for a two-dimensional painting of this simple but beautiful image. Although Madonna And Child is the name of the painting, it is actually a term for any portrait or painting depicting Mary with or without her son, Jesus Christ. This style of painting dates back to the nation of Byzantium, otherwise known as the Roman Empire. These paintings, however, are not meant to be anatomically accurate, but rather an abstract form of Mary. Unfortunately, casein is a dairy-based paint that can be thinned with water if you need a light touch with your artwork. The different values ​​of the blue color really made me admire the painting, it is so simple and yet so beautiful with the darker shades at the bottom and the lighter shades at the top where the white light would be present. Baby Jesus contains pigment that is either absolute white, shades or tan. I believe this was done to show the purity of Jesus. This really shows that there is some sort of value and that the hues come from the casein. I believe that's what Sister Mercedes wanted us to do, is look at the captivating beauty of Mary and her son. But as with everything, this is just my opinion, others may say no due to the beautiful values ​​of red, white and blue flowing like a river on this painting. As far as I know, there are only three main colors in this portrait. If we don't include the different shades, I only see red, white and blue hues. Mary's blue dress is the color that most artists use to make Mary's clothes. The white I see on Mary and her Child may represent youth since they both look so majestic. Unfortunately, I don't quite understand why the red, what was put into his work, much like the history of the painting online, is a mystery. I must say that the painting is not one of them for two reasons. First, just like religion itself, you can't say it's real. But we cannot say that it is fictitious either. So the representative and the non-representative are out of the equation. The abstract itself cannot be abstract, because even if it is a distorted form of reality, it must nevertheless be real. The non-objective poses the same problem, we cannot say that it is a fantasy based on the lack of knowledge we have. It is therefore not a distorted version of a fictional person. Second, we don't know what Mary actually looked like. Just like Jesus himself, the image of Mary changes depending on the culture and religion you adopt.